Jesus is NOT a Dead Man (in Afghanistan or Anywhere Else)

Christians in the West have been watching with great interest and concern as an Afghanistan man faces potential execution under Islamic Law in Afghan Courts.

At present it looks as if Abdul Rahman will win his release as a result of considerable pressure being brought to bear on Afghan officials from The United States and other countries.

Of course the fact that the US provides billions of dollars to Afghanistan has much to do with the Afghan officials' decision to listen closely to Western concerns on this occasion.

It seems that while Mr. Rahman seems to be in fine mental health, that officials in Afghanistan are using the guise of mental instability to work themselves out of a tough spot. By claiming that Rahman is insane (or close to) they can get him off on a technicality- of sorts.

Regardless of how it comes about, the important thing is that Mr. Rahman is going to be kept alive. Although we do not yet what his fate will be beyond this.

To Mr. Rahman's considerable credit he has not backed down from the "accusations" brought against him. And in so doing he is aligning himself with a multitude of Christian martyrs from throughout the centuries.

Standing back in order to see the big picture, we would do well to remember that it is often following periods of great persecution (including mass martyrdom) that Christianity has historically made inroads in various nations.

So that begs the question: If Mr. Rahman was to be martyred for his faith, would other Afghan believers have stepped forward as well? Clearly there are many more Christians in Afghanistan than the Islamic majority would like to admit. And what would this mass-confession accomplish? In the short term it may result in many deaths. But in the long run those deaths may well lay a seedbed of profound witness.

And wouldn't martyrdom in this situation prove an interesting counter-point. While militant Islam wants to sacrifice lives to kill others, Christians would be sacrificing lives that Jesus may live- in the sense that through these actions Jesus would suddenly become real and relevant to 21st century humanity; a humanity made up of Secular Humanists, Muslims, and a myriad of other contemporary groups who are convinced that Jesus is a dead man.




Off the Map Evangelism

Perhaps you heard about the one where an Evangelical organization hired an atheist by mistake?

Actually, this was no mistake- and it really did happen. Recently the Emerging Christian organization known as Off the Map won an Ebay auction of a rather unusual variety.

Basically the story goes like this: a man named Hemant Mehta recently auctioned his services on Ebay. What was he offering? Well, to quote Mehta he was agreeing to "attend a church with an open mind" to "report his findings on them"- as an atheist.

The forward thinking "Off the Map" group jumped at the opportunity- scrounging together about $500 from their budget to make a bid. And you know what? They won!

I actually had the privilege of catching an interview with Off the Map's Jim Henderson and the aforementioned Hemant Mehta, while watching the news a couple of nights ago.

It seems that the experience was an all round good one for everyone involved. Mehta came away from the experience clearly impressed and impacted by the sense of true community apparent in the several churches he visited while working as a "consultant" for Off-the-Map.

And Henderson and gang were clearly pleased for the important and insightful feedback that Mehta offered. Even more so they were thankful for the opportunity to get to know Mehta.

Overall, I think the greatest fruit from this whole experience came from the positive press the "experiment" received. In the interview Henderson made the point that they, along with others in the Emerging Church movement, had shifted focus to count conversations rather than conversions.

I'm sure that many an Atheist and many an Agnostic was impressed and relieved with such commentary from the leader of an Evangelical think-tank.

My hope is that this press not only caught the attention of the non-believing crowd, but the Christian community as well. In my mind the more we realize that we are doing the will of God when we choose to see and honor the Christ in each and every person we meet, whether they choose to wear the Atheist label or not, the closer we are getting to fulfilling the Great Commission.

Through much of the modern era it seems we've made the mistake of thinking we can spread the good news of the Word of God, without honoring the Word of God in the very people we are trying to reach out to. Slowly but surely we are realizing that the two must go hand in hand.


Defining Pastoral Roles: Priests, Prophets and CEO's

One of the figures who has really contributed to the "Emerging conversation" over the last few years is Tony Campolo. Campolo's background in sociology clearly aids him in his understanding of the interaction of Christianity and postmodern culture.

Recently Campolo spoke at a National Pastor's Convention about the unique, two-pronged nature of contemporary pasturing. He made the point that while the Ancient Israelites saw the roles of priest and prophet as distinct, our contemporary context suggests that pastors should be both. This means, says Campolo, that pastors today are called both to "comfort the troubled, and trouble the comfortable."

The role of prophet specifically is one not often embraced by most pastors. And this mantle only becomes more difficult to embrace when socio-political cow-towing leads many leaders to "pull the party line" rather than question the assumptions of the establishment.

Personally, while I think we desperately need prophets today, I am not convinced that pastors are the ones to fulfill that role. I tend to agree with people such as Eugene Peterson who suggest that is the Bonos of the world who serve as our true prophets. Prophets, by their very nature, tend to exist only on the periphery of the Church; not at its center.

To be honest, our contemporary reality suggests to me that, for many segments of the Church, this question of priest/prophet is almost functionally irrelevant. I say that because, especially in today's American mega-churches, pastors tend not to adopt the role of priest or prophet, but rather of CEO. Of course, many 21st century congregations demand this of their leaders. Both share part of the blame.

Modernism's "efficient machine" metaphor is what lies behind much of this rather peculiar ecclesial self-understanding.

I'd say we're still very much in the early stages of defining our prominent postmodern metaphors. And Campolo and others have a key role to play in finding the new dominant models.




Experimental Democracy: Lessons in Palestine and Iraq

It has been an interesting history lesson to see democracy begin to emerge in places like Iraq and Palestine over the last year. I think what the lesson has taught us, among other things, is that democracy itself does not ensure better government.

Palestinians for example, recently used their free vote to bring a terrorist organization to power. Democracy for Iraq, so far anyway, has meant the stitching together of several totalitarian religious factions.


Perhaps this has served as a good reminder to westerners that a free vote itself is not so much the key to our form of government, as is power being shared by several independent branches of government.

Just as importantly I think what the democratic experiments in Palestine and Iraq have served to demonstrate is that while a free and representative vote may be the beginning, the real ideological war is fought in the hearts and minds of the individuals who make up the voting population.

And that is a battle that cannot be won in a single year, let alone a single generation.




Madeleine L'Engle's Early Emergence

I had to laugh at myself recently when I realized that despite what many a childhood librarian taught me, I still can tend to judge a book by its cover. I almost made that mistake recently with a Madeleine L'Engle book titled "And It Was Good: Reflections on Beginnings".

Don't get me wrong, the cover wasn't so much unattractive as it was a Christian publishing image cliché. The cover of this particular early 80's edition is of puffy white clouds rolling gently over a baby-blue sky. I think this was only about the 400th time I had seen this particular cover.

But anyway, one evening I pushed passed my pre-conceptions and cracked the cover open. Was I ever glad I did! What a literary gem! L'Engle's writing was so refreshing, so real, so substantial, and so. poetic.

Often those of us caught up in the postmodern question can tend to only pick up books published over the last decade or so. But d'Lengle is one of those author's that remind us that some insightful people were working through some of our contemporary questions decades ago.

I'll let Madeleine speak for herself. Here's an excerpt from one of L'Engle's opening chapters:

"Anyone embracing Christianity for the sake of safety is going to distort the broken body (of Christ). The desire for safety at any expense ultimately leads to death. It is the desire for safety which has made some people take refuge in religions which provide all the answers, make their members feel more saved than people who don't belong to their group, and promise freedom from danger. Insistence on static answers has brought about the recurring conflicts between science and religion."

L'Engle goes on to share an experience that I know many of us can relate to:

"At a writer's conference I was asked by a young man, "Do you believe in evolution?" I had been talking about structure in fiction, not about science, and the question was asked in the sort of belligerent manner that told me he was waiting to pounce on any answer, no matter what, as "wrong". I replied that I thought that God could create in anyway which seemed good to (Him)."

Now be honest, doesn't this kind of writing sound like something emergents have been experiencing and writing about in recent years? And yet L'Engle wrote these words in 1983.

I wholeheartedly recommend "And It Was Good", as well as another L'Engle gem titled "Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art". L'Engle's writing serves as a reminder that being timely is not necessarily the same thing as being current.




Community: The Spirit of the Olympics?

I must admit that I am currently experiencing a little bit of Olympic withdrawal. It's been a couple of weeks now since the flame went out in Turin(o) and I'm still replaying some of the most memorable scenes out in my mind's eye.

People seem to be divided on whether or not the Olympics is worthwhile in a world that is as war-torn and divided as ours is. Some people wonder about the importance of an international athletic competition in light of Planet Earth's many problems and inequities.

I am one however, who comes down on the side of believing that the Olympics is a worthwhile event. While the opening day ceremonies themselves may be a little bit of an overblown, unrealistic depiction of global harmony, I think a form of real community is forged during "the games".

For me, the sense of community comes not so much from the officials of the IOC or of the various national Olympic committees. It comes from the real bond that is apparent amongst the athletes themselves.

Yes, they are all competing for their respective countries, and yes they muster as much effort as possible to beat each other. And yet, rumors of doping allegations and judicial tampering and aside, this year in Turin(o) it was clear that when the final scores were in, that the athletes saw each other not so much as competitors, as colleagues- and in many cases, friends.

So how does this happen? How do fierce competitors from opposite ends of the globe end up embracing each other as friends? Well, put simply it comes down to common ground. Community is forged amongst the international athletic community because people spend time together. It is amazing what a sense of common shared space and shared goals will do for people with very different backgrounds.

I think this is a lesson that Christians can apply when it comes to our attitudes towards those who see things differently than we do. It is amazing what common ground can accomplish when it comes to forging community. I think we need to do a better job of pro-actively creating these "shared timespaces". Surely that is much more effective than shouting out platitudes from our ivory towers.




Adventures in Scripture-slinging:

Last month I wrote about recent experiences in "scripture slinging"; that peculiar practice where Evangelicals tend to assert their opinions while simultaneously insulting each other with Biblical quotations.

For some reason it doesn't seem to occur to either party that while they both cling to the idea that one must support one's opinions with Bible quotes, that they are supporting almost opposite perspectives by using the same Bible.

What's the deal here? Is it a question of hermeneutics?

I recently experienced this same phenomena all over again. One person posted an article in which he stated that Jim Wallis was decidedly too left-wing for his tastes and that in reality Wallis' position on a whole host of social justice issues was biblically unfounded. This writer finished his diatribe with a comment that Wallis needs to support his ideas Biblically if he is to be taken seriously.

Someone wrote back in defense of Wallis. This person made the point that Wallis has "EXTENSIVELY supported his positions with evidence from the Bible".

And I think that's true. Wallis has done this. And there is certainly no shortage of calls to social justice to draw from in both testaments- especially the Old.

Rather than question whether or not Wallis is right in his perspective, I just ant to draw attention to the degree to which people approach the Bible with pre-existing notions about just about everything you can imagine. Not surprisingly, they then find support for what they already believe in what they read.

I know it's supposed to work the other way around. But personally, I very seldom see that being the case. I think this is another stroke against the sola scriptura stance that Evangelicals like to subscribe to.

At some point we need to be honest with ourselves and honest with others in admitting that there is much more than Scripture alone that defines our opinions.

While many fear that in doing so we will lose credibility with the World, it is my firm belief that exactly the opposite is the case. Because, (who are we kidding?) believe me- they already see it.




Papal Peace Plea

This past week marked the beginning of the solemn season of Lent. Pope Bendict XVI ushered in this celebrated part of the Catholic calendar with services at St. Peter's Square on Ash Wednesday.

The Pope made a timely call for peace. Specifically he urged Christians around the world not to respond to others who threaten peace with "vendetta, hate or escape to false spiritualism".

This message went along way to reminding Catholics (and indeed all Christians) that the search for security and peace cannot be used as a scapegoat for less than Christ-like actions towards our enemies.

Figuring out exactly where that line should be drawn is of course a difficult one; almost possibly even impossible; but that's what gave the Pope's message such a note of authenticity.




Current from: June 2007 - May 2007 - March-April 2007 - January-February 2007 - November-December 2006 - July-October 2006 - May/June 2006 - April 2006 - March 2006 - February 2006 - January 2006 - December 2005 - Christmas Current 2005 - November 2005 - October 2005 - September 2005